Cutting Government spending pays for it's self.

[turtlespeed 226]

Straight forward question.

Does cutting goverment spending add more money to the coffers?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[billvon 3,133]

>Does cutting goverment spending add more money to the coffers?

No. It just results in less money being taken out of the coffers. It's like asking if buying cheaper food adds money to your bank account. It doesn't; it just takes it out more slowly.

[quade 4]

Quote

Does cutting goverment spending add more money to the coffers?

Define your terms, specifically "coffers."

Who's "coffers" are you talking about? The overall economy, the pockets of defense contractors and the people that work for them or just the government itself?

That's part of the issue.

If the US government reduced spending on defense, it would see an enormous benefit in terms of deficit reduction. Unfortunately, many defense companies would stop manufacturing as much meaning they would need to reduce labor, which in turn also means lower tax revenues.

If the government cut back on ALL farming subsidies, they'd also see a huge reduction in debt. However, farmers would charge more for produce and food prices around the country would skyrocket. That might be a good thing for some, but not for others.

The basic problem is that over the decades we've become far too reliant on the relationship between government and business.

Corporate welfare is a much, MUCH bigger issue than welfare for the poor.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

Does cutting goverment spending add more money to the coffers?

Define your terms, specifically "coffers."

Who's "coffers" are you talking about? The overall economy, the pockets of defense contractors and the people that work for them or just the government itself?

That's part of the issue.

If the US government reduced spending on defense, it would see an enormous benefit in terms of deficit reduction. Unfortunately, many defense companies would stop manufacturing as much meaning they would need to reduce labor, which in turn also means lower tax revenues.

If the government cut back on ALL farming subsidies, they'd also see a huge reduction in debt. However, farmers would charge more for produce and food prices around the country would skyrocket. That might be a good thing for some, but not for others.

The basic problem is that over the decades we've become far too reliant on the relationship between government and business.

Corporate welfare is a much, MUCH bigger issue than welfare for the poor.

Like Bail Outs?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[quade 4]

Quote

Like Bail Outs?

Absolutely! But, unfortunately, it's an extremely complex issue. Some bail outs actually worked and paid for themselves with interest. Some didn't work out at all.

It sucks to be us.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[StreetScooby 5]

This is not a simple yes/no question. Liberals don't realize that allowing capital to work properly actually grows the pie for everyone, so that more pie can go into government coffers by actually reducing tax burdens.

We are all engines of karma

[billvon 3,133]

> Liberals don't realize that allowing capital to work properly actually grows
>the pie for everyone, so that more pie can go into government coffers by
>actually reducing tax burdens.

And many conservatives don't realize that taxes are what fills those government coffers to begin with. There is more than one side to this equation.

[hwt 0]

Quote

> Liberals don't realize that allowing capital to work properly actually grows
>the pie for everyone, so that more pie can go into government coffers by
>actually reducing tax burdens.

And many conservatives don't realize that taxes are what fills those government coffers to begin with. There is more than one side to this equation.

__________________________________________________
I earn x amount of money a month and if i spend less money a month would i have more money to put in the bank every month?
answer: Damn right i would..
Here are the facts liberals fail to understand....
the more you tax , the less incentive a person has to earn more.
the more you give to the poor , the less incentive they have to get a job.

[billvon 3,133]

>Here are the facts liberals fail to understand....
>the more you tax , the less incentive a person has to earn more.

The more you tax (up to around the peak of the Laffer Curve) the MORE incentive a person has to earn more, since he needs to get a greater increase in his income to be able to afford a desired product or service.

To put it another way, to afford that house your wife really wants, you might need to make $100,000 a year under tax scheme A, whereas under Tax Scheme B you might need to make $110,000. Under which scheme will you have a stronger incentive to take the job that offers a salary of $110,000 a year?

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Does cutting goverment spending add more money to the coffers?

Define your terms, specifically "coffers."

Who's "coffers" are you talking about? The overall economy, the pockets of defense contractors and the people that work for them or just the government itself?

That's part of the issue.

If the US government reduced spending on defense, it would see an enormous benefit in terms of deficit reduction. Unfortunately, many defense companies would stop manufacturing as much meaning they would need to reduce labor, which in turn also means lower tax revenues.

If the government cut back on ALL farming subsidies, they'd also see a huge reduction in debt. However, farmers would charge more for produce and food prices around the country would skyrocket. That might be a good thing for some, but not for others.

The basic problem is that over the decades we've become far too reliant on the relationship between government and business.

Corporate welfare is a much, MUCH bigger issue than welfare for the poor.

Like Bail Outs?

It's great to chide teh bailouts, but as long as we live in that vacuum where we ignore teh cost of not bailing out, as in the GD, we can be blissful. What did doing nothing cost us in 1929? We don't totally know, but much suffering and delay. Fortunately our leaders learned from that. Unfortunately many of the conservatives can't understand and decipher history's message that it just won't fix itself.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

This is not a simple yes/no question. Liberals don't realize that allowing capital to work properly actually grows the pie for everyone, so that more pie can go into government coffers by actually reducing tax burdens.

Then why are you not addressing my graph that shows 100 years of taxes as far as the top marginal brkt for income tax? The mode is virtually always rendering a conclusion that low taxes lead to hell, our best times were under higher taxes. You can disagree with the theory, you can't refute the data, which is why you don't and you just ignore it.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

> Liberals don't realize that allowing capital to work properly actually grows
>the pie for everyone, so that more pie can go into government coffers by
>actually reducing tax burdens.

And many conservatives don't realize that taxes are what fills those government coffers to begin with. There is more than one side to this equation.

__________________________________________________
I earn x amount of money a month and if i spend less money a month would i have more money to put in the bank every month?
answer: Damn right i would..
Here are the facts liberals fail to understand....
the more you tax , the less incentive a person has to earn more.
the more you give to the poor , the less incentive they have to get a job.

When the gov spends money, it stimulates the economy, when the gov gives teh very rich tax breaks, it often sits and stagnates at the will of the rich. Now you may not find this fair, but you can have fair and fucked or unfair and workable. You know how the military did a lot of things that seemed unfair? Well, they alsoi worked. High taxes might be utilitarian in your mind, but they are also what makes the economy work, refute my 100-year graph or concede.

[champu 1]

Quote

>Here are the facts liberals fail to understand....
>the more you tax , the less incentive a person has to earn more.

The more you tax (up to around the peak of the Laffer Curve) the MORE incentive a person has to earn more, since he needs to get a greater increase in his income to be able to afford a desired product or service.

To put it another way, to afford that house your wife really wants, you might need to make $100,000 a year under tax scheme A, whereas under Tax Scheme B you might need to make $110,000. Under which scheme will you have a stronger incentive to take the job that offers a salary of $110,000 a year?

It would be interesting to start drawing/analyzing that from a control systems standpoint (and I assume someone already has.) Because the availability of (and thus how difficult it is to obtain) the $110,000 job is also a function of the tax rate. Plus, within a given tax scheme the incentive to work harder is a non-linear function of income (probably multimodal.)

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Straight forward question.

Does cutting goverment spending add more money to the coffers?

Reagan's tax cuts never met outlays. Clinton's tax increases in 93 yielded IMMEDIATE results of higher receipts.

GWB's tax cuts yielded IMMEDIATE loss of revs.

Can you show historical tax evidence? Hell, look at Eisenhower; he left taxes at 91% top brkt and teh debt fell 3 years under his 8 years of presidency.

Pls post data to show me where tax cuts lead to higher receipts.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

> Liberals don't realize that allowing capital to work properly actually grows
>the pie for everyone, so that more pie can go into government coffers by
>actually reducing tax burdens.

And many conservatives don't realize that taxes are what fills those government coffers to begin with. There is more than one side to this equation.

__________________________________________________

Quote

I earn x amount of money a month and if i spend less money a month would i have more money to put in the bank every month?
answer: Damn right i would..

Then your lesser spending measn someone else isn't selling their goods, so they suffer. Not your problem, but saving stagnates the economy, spending stimulates it.

Quote

Here are the facts liberals fail to understand....
the more you tax , the less incentive a person has to earn more.

Here's what conservatives refuse to accept: Cutting taxes allows the rich to pocket their money rather than being forced to reinvest it as a shelter, this stagnation cuts jobs and hurts the economy while helping the individual rich person / corporation.

Quote

the more you give to the poor , the less incentive they have to get a job.

The more tax breaks you give to the rich, the fewer incentives they have to seek tax shelters that create employment.

[kallend 2,184]

Quote

Straight forward question.

Does cutting goverment spending add more money to the coffers?

Depends if the spending is waste, like billions spent killing brown people who've done us no harm, or if the spending is an investment in society.

Government spending on education pays off big time, for example.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Then why are you not addressing my graph that shows 100 years of taxes as far as the top marginal brkt for income tax? The mode is virtually always rendering a conclusion that low taxes lead to hell, our best times were under higher taxes. You can disagree with the theory, you can't refute the data, which is why you don't and you just ignore it.

How many times do you think you'll need to post this before it's true? a million?

Most of us weren't alive for the post Korea War Eisenhower Administration you believe supports your claim. We were alive in the 80s and 90s where it is easily disproved.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Then why are you not addressing my graph that shows 100 years of taxes as far as the top marginal brkt for income tax? The mode is virtually always rendering a conclusion that low taxes lead to hell, our best times were under higher taxes. You can disagree with the theory, you can't refute the data, which is why you don't and you just ignore it.

Quote

How many times do you think you'll need to post this before it's true? a million?

I've posted data, you and your neo-cons both run from it and fail to post OBJECTIVE data to support the other side or refute mine. Until then, you look silly and lose.

Quote

Most of us weren't alive for the post Korea War Eisenhower Administration you believe supports your claim.

Well hell then, we'll only consider relevance to you, the 2nd coming. WTF does it matter who was alive? Are you fucking real? SO I guess all that hammerring about the Constipation (intentional) is meaningless because we weren't alive Where are you from?????

Quote

We were alive in the 80s and 90s where it is easily disproved.

1) You still haven't disproven anything and using Reaganomics to support your claim is as well a bad idea.

2) I like to use all of relevant history and the biggest changes were post FDR, as tehy are much like today vs per-FDR where military and social spending were gropssly different. Either way, I posted 100 years of tax data in a general sense and you can't refute any of it whether 100 years ago or yesterday.

[hwt 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Liberals don't realize that allowing capital to work properly actually grows
>the pie for everyone, so that more pie can go into government coffers by
>actually reducing tax burdens.

And many conservatives don't realize that taxes are what fills those government coffers to begin with. There is more than one side to this equation.

__________________________________________________

Quote

I earn x amount of money a month and if i spend less money a month would i have more money to put in the bank every month?
answer: Damn right i would..

Then your lesser spending measn someone else isn't selling their goods, so they suffer. Not your problem, but saving stagnates the economy, spending stimulates it.

Quote

Here are the facts liberals fail to understand....
the more you tax , the less incentive a person has to earn more.

Here's what conservatives refuse to accept: Cutting taxes allows the rich to pocket their money rather than being forced to reinvest it as a shelter, this stagnation cuts jobs and hurts the economy while helping the individual rich person / corporation.

Quote

the more you give to the poor , the less incentive they have to get a job.

The more tax breaks you give to the rich, the fewer incentives they have to seek tax shelters that create employment.

_______________________________________
The Government waste more money then it spends. I would prefer for everyone to spend their own money and not for the Government to dole it out.you want the government to do it .just look at all the failed programs it has created.Now you go ahead and make 3-4 new post and tell us how great a job the Government is doing with all that tax money.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Here are the facts liberals fail to understand....
>the more you tax , the less incentive a person has to earn more.

The more you tax (up to around the peak of the Laffer Curve) the MORE incentive a person has to earn more, since he needs to get a greater increase in his income to be able to afford a desired product or service.

To put it another way, to afford that house your wife really wants, you might need to make $100,000 a year under tax scheme A, whereas under Tax Scheme B you might need to make $110,000. Under which scheme will you have a stronger incentive to take the job that offers a salary of $110,000 a year?

Sounds like tax scheme A lets me keep more money in my pocket at the end of the week.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,184]

Looks as if SecDef Gates can cut a lot:

"I concluded that our headquarters and support bureaucracies -- military and civilian alike -- have swelled to cumbersome and top-heavy proportions, grown over-reliant on contractors, and grown accustomed to operating with little consideration to cost. This manifested itself over the past decade in vast increases in spending and staff."

Gates described the cutbacks as just the first of many "inefficiencies" that he plans to uncover and said the Defense Department must separate its "appetites from real requirements."

The annual U.S. defense budget is around $700 billion, which includes spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cutbacks will require the closure of a major military command along with possible base closures, a reduction in the use of outside contractors, and personnel cutbacks among "top brass" -- including generals and admirals -- across all branches of the armed forces.

"As a result of the wars, this department has taken on new missions and responsibilities that have required some [of these] new senior military and civilian [posts]," Gates said.

"But apart from meeting these genuine war-related needs we have also seen an acceleration of what Senator John Glenn called -- more than 20 years ago -- 'brass creep.' A situation where personnel of higher and higher rank are assigned to do things that could reasonably be handled by personnel of lower rank."

I predict a lot of whining about this.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Looks as if SecDef Gates can cut a lot:

"I concluded that our headquarters and support bureaucracies -- military and civilian alike -- have swelled to cumbersome and top-heavy proportions, grown over-reliant on contractors, and grown accustomed to operating with little consideration to cost. This manifested itself over the past decade in vast increases in spending and staff."

Gates described the cutbacks as just the first of many "inefficiencies" that he plans to uncover and said the Defense Department must separate its "appetites from real requirements."

The annual U.S. defense budget is around $700 billion, which includes spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The cutbacks will require the closure of a major military command along with possible base closures, a reduction in the use of outside contractors, and personnel cutbacks among "top brass" -- including generals and admirals -- across all branches of the armed forces.

"As a result of the wars, this department has taken on new missions and responsibilities that have required some [of these] new senior military and civilian [posts]," Gates said.

"But apart from meeting these genuine war-related needs we have also seen an acceleration of what Senator John Glenn called -- more than 20 years ago -- 'brass creep.' A situation where personnel of higher and higher rank are assigned to do things that could reasonably be handled by personnel of lower rank."

I predict a lot of whining about this.

As for me I hope this spreads like SCL cancer to the rest of the Fed Gov.

If that happened the whining would really begin

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

you can have fair and fucked or unfair and workable.

finally a lefty on this site admits that their position really is an unfair position (but necessary, at least in their mind)

a discussion about necessity is a reasonable debate and one that might offer cross understanding - rather than the usual crap that one side is completely pure and right and the other has no merit and is evil and suspicious

I'm impressed, for the 1st time

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants